Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Oh goody, building the possible evolution of mammals using protein sequence...that's all fine and dandy...but different proteins give different results...bad assumption behind it I say.

Same protein, same function, different gene sequence.
Thats what I meant earlier when protein function depends on shape not on exact sequence.
When the amino acids fold in on themselves similar sequences produce the same shape. Some more effective than others. Thats why medicines which are completely different in makeup still act on the same sites as hormones(proteins) which are found naturally in the body. A gene can be mutated and maintain its functionality.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Felgar wrote:LOL... I agree. This is what I've been saying too; on scientific merit, with a completely unbiased view, I don't believe that evolution holds up. Why? Because the predictions it makes are not supported by observation. Note that I've pointed how I think most scientists are biased by their unwillingness to accept an Almighty God, whereas I feel I'm unbiased because I don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.

How can you say you "don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution" and also say "I don't believe that evolution holds up".

I'm saying on purely scientific grounds TOE doesn't hold up. If it did hold up, it would be fact and it would then be very easy to reconcile with scripture, IMO. As it is though, no reconciliation is, or will ever be necessary.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[How does spawning glowing pink frogs validate evolution?

Because according to the theory I should be able to intentionally use natural selection to create entirely new species. I should be able to take a population of fruit flies and turn them into glowing pink frogs. Since we can't do that, we see an instance of the predictions derived from the TOE not matching our observations.

Felgar wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Felgar wrote:LOL... I agree. This is what I've been saying too; on scientific merit, with a completely unbiased view, I don't believe that evolution holds up. Why? Because the predictions it makes are not supported by observation. Note that I've pointed how I think most scientists are biased by their unwillingness to accept an Almighty God, whereas I feel I'm unbiased because I don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.

How can you say you "don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution" and also say "I don't believe that evolution holds up".

I'm saying on purely scientific grounds TOE doesn't hold up. If it did hold up, it would be fact and it would then be very easy to reconcile with scripture, IMO. As it is though, no reconciliation is, or will ever be necessary.

In science we have laws and Theories.
Laws are absolute simple statements.

Like the law of thermodynamics.
Or the law of gravity.

A theory is a big picture description of a process or processes.
Like the theory of General Relativity.
Or Chaos theory.

They are fact, in the scientific sence as far as they are considered the closest to the truth as scientifically possible. Science you see is based on skleptisism, including of common sense.

The word theory in the vernacular is quite different than the way it is used in science. A theory in the general sense is more like a hunch or and idea. But that in science is more akin to hypothesis.

Felgar wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[How does spawning glowing pink frogs validate evolution?

Because according to the theory I should be able to intentionally use natural selection to create entirely new species.

The domestication of dogs, and cattle actually was the driving force for thinking behind natural selection. Man can select and breed as could nature so the thought went...

Felgar wrote:I should be able to take a population of fruit flies and turn them into glowing pink frogs. Since we can't do that, we see an instance of the predictions derived from the TOE not matching our observations.

No this is a severe misunderstanding of evolution. I have no problem with anyone choosing not to beleive it, however it does bother me some if the theory itself is perverted into nonsense.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No this is a severe misunderstanding of evolution. I have no problem with anyone choosing not to beleive it, however it does bother me some if the theory itself is perverted into nonsense.

My statement only seems like nonsense because the theory that adaptation has led to the extremely diverse forms of life we see today is indeed, nonsense. Were it true then we'd have already done it and it would be quite acceptable - and I harken back to my earlier analogies; destroying a city with the nuclear explosion of a few pounds of material, and flying metal birds also at one time would have seemed like nonsense.

Glowing pink frogs are not unreasonable considering the diversity of life on our planet. You're claiming it all came from other life of a different form, and I'm saying "ok then, show me life changing form" and you can't. That's it; there's no perversion at all.

Felgar wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No this is a severe misunderstanding of evolution. I have no problem with anyone choosing not to beleive it, however it does bother me some if the theory itself is perverted into nonsense.

My statement only seems like nonsense because the theory that adaptation has led to the extremely diverse forms of life we see today is indeed, nonsense. Were it true then we'd have already done it and it would be quite acceptable - and I harken back to my earlier analogies; destroying a city with the nuclear explosion of a few pounds of material, and flying metal birds also at one time would have seemed like nonsense.

I am sorry I don't follow. One has nothing to do with the other.

Felgar wrote:Glowing pink frogs are not unreasonable considering the diversity of life on our planet. You're claiming it all came from other life of a different form, and I'm saying "ok then, show me life changing form" and you can't. That's it; there's no perversion at all.

I can get you glowing pink frogs, but from regular frogs, but you are misrepresenting the theory of evolution if you think that frogs came from fruitflies. Or that any morphological jump of that sort is being claimed.
Alba
http://www.aec.at/festival2001/update/s ... .asp?ID=90
Frog Speciation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140816.htm

Genetic manipulation would accelerate any natural processes.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Likewise, it is clear that many people who reject evolution do so on non-scientific grounds.

Genetic fallacy.

That's a very good point which I had overlooked. In that case, let's consider biologists who are committed to neither atheistic nor theistic restrictions on their belief (for or against) evolution. This would leave agnostics, Catholics, etc. I still feel (although I have no hard numbers) that the vast majority will be pro-evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I can get you glowing pink frogs, but from regular frogs, but you are misrepresenting the theory of evolution if you think that frogs came from fruitflies. Or that any morphological jump of that sort is being claimed.

But that IS what is being claimed. That actually all life came from the simplest of organisms. I'm not denying that living things can mutate and change, what I'm arguing is that it cannot accout for the life we see.

Interesting link on the frogs. Again though, they're still frogs. Just because one population has become decrepid enough that it's offspring with the other frogs don't live doesn't really show much except that once again mutation has caused a lessenning in the complexity/survivability of life. There are many people with genetic diseases who's children would not survive if they had them; does that mean those two people are different creatures?

Felgar wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I can get you glowing pink frogs, but from regular frogs, but you are misrepresenting the theory of evolution if you think that frogs came from fruitflies. Or that any morphological jump of that sort is being claimed.

But that IS what is being claimed. That actually all life came from the simplest of organisms. I'm not denying that living things can mutate and change, what I'm arguing is that it cannot accout for the life we see.

Interesting link on the frogs. Again though, they're still frogs. Just because one population has become decrepid enough that it's offspring with the other frogs don't live doesn't really show much except that once again mutation has caused a lessenning in the complexity/survivability of life. There are many people with genetic diseases who's children would not survive if they had them; does that mean those two people are different creatures?

It is because you categorize life in the way you do that it causes problems.
Study more and you will see that life defies your categorization.

At which point does a frog and a toad become different?
What about a salamandar.
What are these below?

True frog
Rain frog
Budgett's frog
Pipidae toungeless aquatic frogs
Axylotyl
Mole salamandar
Lungless salamandar
tailed frog
Giant salamander

Here's some genetic analysis including data showing possible relationships between salamandars, frogs, newts and toads.http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/264.pdf

BGood, did you miss the point in the Bible where it says:

Genesis 1:20-25

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

All things were made according to its kind, so you could have variations within the frog species, which you have demonstrated, and then there are other variations. Like ice cream, you have the cone, and then on top can be different variations of ice cream, you then can have that each variation of ice cream has different ingredients which make it different from other ice cream flavors but the cone is the same, in this sense, the same kind of living animal, like a frog, but can be in different variations. Genetics also could be a little similar to another species, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Thinker wrote:BGood, did you miss the point in the Bible where it says:

Genesis 1:20-25

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

All things were made according to its kind, so you could have variations within the frog species, which you have demonstrated, and then there are other variations. Like ice cream, you have the cone, and then on top can be different variations of ice cream, you then can have that each variation of ice cream has different ingredients which make it different from other ice cream flavors but the cone is the same, in this sense, the same kind of living animal, like a frog, but can be in different variations. Genetics also could be a little similar to another species, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

My point was what looks like frogs aren't truely frogs. There are major differences between each of those images. but the human eye focusses on the hind legs and the tail. You can't conveniently place all frog like things into the same group.

For example the tailed frog lacks the external ear structures and possesses no vocalizations. The variations in anatomy are just as great or even greater than body shape and tailessness.
More Informationhttp://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/ ... tailed.htm

Pipidae also seem froglike but are a more primative form.
Pipidae Informationhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... pidae.html

Another example.
Hard to say where the border should be, what changes can be attributed to micro evolution and therefore can be thought to come from a single form created by God.
Serval
Cheetah
Hyena
Wolf
African Wild Dog
Fennec Fox

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Hard to say where the border should be, what changes can be attributed to micro evolution and therefore can be thought to come from a single form created by God.

That's exactly right. Hard to say, isn't it? Esspecially hard to say when there is no evidence for the intermediate creatures which evolution predicts would have to have existed. I feel I've made the point I was trying to, which is to show that evolution cannot be considered 'fact' by default and IMO the evidence in support of it is underwhelming. You obviously still disagree which is fine; we can let science take its course. Eventually science will find the truth and if it turns out to be evolution then so be it.

To summarize and tie back in with the original topic, when discussing evolution I am referring to evolution as the origin of species; of all life. I've held all along that evolution could be easily reconciled with scripture. I'm just arguing that evolution does not have the evidence behind it to allow it to be considered scientific fact. If it did, I would be fine with then reconciling it to scripture. Just as an excerise here's one reconciliation (recognizing this is a 'what if' because I still reject evolution):

God designed life such that it can adapt to its environment in order that it has the ability to survive in a natural environment which is also prone to change. In the same way that stars are born and die, so too do species as a result of the natural universe created by God. Now, the same discussion considering how the stars came into being (a natural process following God's substantiation of the universe; the big bang) or an instant creation which retains the appearance of age can now be also attributed to evolution. Did God create all the plants and animals in an instant or allow His laws of nature to do it? Day-Agers would say that is was natural according to God's plan; I would say it's appearance of age. Regardless, evolution becomes no more difficult than the universe itself to reconcile with scripture.

Also note that regardless of the rest of life, the Bible is clear that man is specially created in the image of God; man was formed as an act of God seperate from the natural creation of the world. Nevertheless, the mechanism for life to evolve was put in place by God and continues to this day as we currently observe through scientific observation.

Really if you ever prove evolution, you atheists have a very hollow victory, and STILL have not managed to dodge the truth of an Almighty Creator. It would be much like the revalation that the Earth is round; after a while completely moot in the debate about the existance of God.

BGood is using photos and articles that "convince" you that evolution is fact. The pictures prove nothing. If it were proof, why aren't ALL scientists saying that evolution is a FACT? Because it isn't, at least not in this moment if it were indeed true. However, Felgar makes the point about God. You still have to explain how and why EVERYTHING came about like it did. As we can study the naturalness on earth and elsewhere, it still doesn't explain why it happened. I see life and I see that we as humans were meant in this record of history to fit in with nature. I find concepts proposed by scientists what we will be like in millions of years more utterly nonsense. I mean for one thing, why is it shown that prayer is PROVEN to work? My dad gets secular medical journals that have double blind studies done that show prayer works, and not just to ones self, but from one person to another. I have seen things that convince me that the supernatural indeed exists that science cannot explain but rejects anyways just because they can't explain it. I think, and a public majority according to articles found on news websites, believe that people are starting to turn from the scientific because this is more of a political war than where we came from. I find science in my opinion is trying to speed up science and explain everything as quickly as they can. I found this to be convincing once ID was strongly introduced, and ever since, literally everything and everywhere I go is publicly displaying all things evolution without God, or more simply put, No God. Science to me seems like the enemy and I think eventually if nothing is done about it, the war is going to get very intense more so over what we have already seen.

Thinker wrote:You still have to explain how and why EVERYTHING came about like it did.

Most scientists would say these questions are outside the realm of science. Science can only study natural phenomena. Unless a religion makes certain claims about nature (e.g. the age of the earth), it is beyond the purview of science.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Thinker wrote:You still have to explain how and why EVERYTHING came about like it did.

Most scientists would say these questions are outside the realm of science. Science can only study natural phenomena. Unless a religion makes certain claims about nature (e.g. the age of the earth), it is beyond the purview of science.

But as SCIENTISTS, this is THEIR job, and if they can't do it, then they can't be truly called scientists. To say "it is outside the realm of science" is absurd, because science is SUPPOSED to explain these things. Therefore they fail, and they are not good scientists.

No, science can't explain everything. [Although some scientists may think so.]
A trivial example. Suppose God created the universe 6000 years ago with the appearance of being billions of years old. How can science distinguish between such a universe and one actually billions of years old ?